h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

A government scientist is dead. Maybe the government has some culpability there, I don't know.

Maybe the fact that the press were camped outside the man's house had something to do with it?

So why is it there is talk of Tony Blair, Comical Ali and Geoff Hoon resigning, but no newspaper editors?

It was the same after Diana died. For a day or so people were criticising the media - the tabloid paparazzi killed her, etc. Then suddenly the "agenda" was switched to the Queen - she wasn't sad enough, publicly enough - this would be the end of the monarchy.


It is as if the media is never responsible for anything. There is always somebody else to blame, and if there isn't change the subject. How stupid do they think we are? Self-serving hypocrites the lot of them. The din of axes grinding drowns out any information...

How about the fact that people believe everything the media says. To me I think they should bear at least part of the responsibility of the stupidity of the general public.

How about the fact that people believe everything the media says. To me I think they should bear at least part of the responsibility of the stupidity of the general public.

Yeah, it seems crazy to believe what they say. Well probably most of what they say is reasonably accurate (which is not good enough), but it is with what they choose to say and what they choose to ignore that the big distortions occur.

A big blind spot is the role of the press itself. Well they can say that they're just doing a job, giving the people what sells papers, etc. Well just about everybody has that excuse, and they don't buy it when other people make it.

But I wonder how much people do really believe it. If you stopped 100 people in the street and asked them if they thought newspapers were honest and truthful. I would guess about 3 would say yes. And 2 of them misheard the question.

I suppose more people may think the papers they read are the honest ones, but I would still expect a lot of scepticism.

apparently people who live in the west, and are told they have a 'free press' believe what they are told. whilst people who live in a state where the media is not so 'free' actually know how to read between the lines.

The media claims they are "just trying to keep the people informed". And yes, the belief that we have freedom of the press has made people believe what the media says. Most seem to think that if it is in writing or a quote from someone well know (from politician to actor) than it has to be true.

Yeah, well if a newspaper prints that so and so said something, it is quite unlikely that they didn't say any such thing.

It is very likely that they said a great deal more, and that the newspaper has chosen to print whatever fits its agenda.

And of course the original statements by the speaker were themselves chosen to fit the speaker's agenda, and are already a selective treatment of the facts. (That is, if the speaker is being honest.)

So while what you get in such a situation may be strictly truthful, it will only contain what both parties don't mind you knowing, so is not terribly informative.


Add to this, the question of why whatever it is is being reported, and you will find that most of the time, there isn't something that has actually happened, a crime or accident, or discovery of some secret, or whatever. No, it is largely manufactured news - activities are undertaken in order to get into the newspapers. It makes journalists' lives easier because content comes to them instead of them going to find it, but frankly, I am not interested in reading it. So and so wants to be in the papers and is talking about stuff. Big story - not.

Oh come on!!! We all know Blair and Bush lied to us all to try and obtain some justification for the war on Iraq. Without the press exposing these 'sexed up' documents, we would have no idea what is going on.
I think we should remember that the press is, for the most part, on the side of the people.

I think we should remember the press is on the side of the newspaper owners' bank accounts.

Charlie

the media is full of liars. it's all down to numbers: how many people are watching/reading/listening to us. if there are people like Max Clifford who get paid for keeping things out of the papers, there will certainly be people who are paid to insert things into papers.

media newsbroadcasting will also never show the whole picture. subjective journalism, all of it. it's like trying to find Reading on a hand-copied map of Algeria, at night, with a broken torch whilst hopelessly drunk on bad tequila.

Freedom of the press is great, If you own a press.

Freedom of the press is great, If you own a press.

Did you by any chance read that in a newspaper?

Jowot

Excellent rant - couldn't agree more. It is ironic that one of the media's hobby-horses is the low turn-out in elections and the poor quality of political debate. They are in large part responsible. And dare I suggest that if the media didn't behave as they do, then spin-doctors would be out of a job?!

Of course, it is rare that anyone succeeds in criticising, let alone reforming the media, since, because of their power to wreck careers and lives they are effectively above censure. I have seen them compared to ancient gods, who mere mortals could only hope to placate.

I wonder if the tragic death of Dr Kelly will at least cause some mature reflection by all involved? Or will the parallel with Diana's death be followed - wringing of hands for a while, then back to business as usual?

May I ask (on a BBC site!) if anyone remembers public service broadcasting?

Chris

It'll be back to business as usual, no doubt about it.

I can't think of anything the newspapers might do which would lead to mature reflection on their part. Except perhaps something that reduced their sales. The media is part of the entertainment industry. It's all about circulation, bums on seats, etc. The selling of papers is the only justification needed for any action. They can say (truthfully I suppose) if you don't want us to do this, why do you buy the paper?

Well I don't buy papers any more. It only encourages them.

Good point. Buying newspapers only encourages them.

Here we have a 'free press' and its amazing to see how freely so much of it swallowed the '45 minutes till Saddam can nuke London' bullshit when it was obvious to even a casual observer that the demonisation of Saddam was less than convincing. I refer any sceptics to the FAC report.

And yes, I am sceptical about Dr Kelly's suicide. At best it seemed he was scapegoated and driven to suicide, and at worst, well...



a conspiracy theorist could say that his death was the product of a complex web of deceit and subterfuge, that he was a crucial spook who defected from M16 and the MOD to the BBC to blow the whistle on an immmoral propaganda campaign intended to drag a reluctant country to war. A decent man under impossible pressure who had plenty more to say and was angry with his bosses and his treatment by the state, taken out by some shady Special Ops, covered up as apparant suicide.

His death serves to scare other 'experts' and 'sources' wavering as Kelly did, and as yet another diverting mystery which can be spun into distracting froth till the inquiries come home, again hiding Blair's real reasons for taking the nation to war.

Which of course was to appease the Knights Templar illuminati shapeshifting alien lizards who really rule the universe. *ahem*



Only the last bit I'm not so sure on.

<>

Yep, you've certainly hit the nail there!! Sadly though, this is equally as true of the BBC as of other broadcast/print media. I have long since believed that its "News and Current Affairs" department should be re-named "News and Light Entertainment".

I have never quite got over a "correspondent" on Eddie Maher's "Broadcasting House" radio programme actually interviewing a sheep (honestly!!) during the Foot and Mouth crisis. As you can imagine, it was riveting stuff ...

Intrepid reporter: So [name of sheep], how do you feel?

Sheep: [Silence]

... and so on!

Like you, I have stopped buying papers - but we have no (legal) option other than to pay our licence fee.

Chris

I confess to having a soft spot for the BBC. Sure its people are in the same profession as the rest of the media, and it would look odd if they didn't behave in largely the same way.

But the advertising-free nature gives I think one less reason to distrust it. Broadcasting house is often hilarious - a Private Eye of the radio.

I think Broadcasting House and particularly Private Eye serve an important social function in rubbing the sores of media hypocrisy. Of course they are media institutions themselves and will not go near their own sores. While this may detract a little from what they do, it is a lot better than nothing.